LED Replacements for Directional Lighting

Summary

LED Replacements for Directional Lighting

Track Lighting, Recessed Cans, Downlight Applications: LED vs. Halogen Incandescent

Integral track systems, usually ceiling-mounted tracks with adjustable heads (not directional replacement lamps in existing cans).

Synopsis:

LED products are becoming broadly available for directional applications such as track lighting, downlighting, recessed cans, flood lights, as well as accent, task, and display lighting. Integral LED track lighting systems use LED track heads specifically designed as an integral LED unit, including the LED module and/or array, optics, and thermal management. Because of the inherent directionality of LED light sources, track lighting is especially suited for LED sources.

Indoor lighting systems employing LED technology are widely available from a number of manufacturers. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is encouraging research, development and market penetration of the technology and is providing resources for objective, ongoing information about the technology. The Design Lights Consortium includes a category for LED track lighting and as of December 2011 there are over 125 products qualified.

Energy savings over traditional track lighting using incandescent halogen may be significant—up to 60-75% depending on design light levels and fixture efficiency. Lamp life could be significantly longer than other systems in use, potentially providing maintenance savings that can be significant for retail, hotel, hospitality and other applications. The white light is available in a range of color temperatures and high CRI suitable for architectural lighting uses. Light distribution can be precisely controlled in well-designed luminaires by taking advantage of the inherent directionality of LED sources. Additionally, the DOE predicts continued improvement in efficacy and decline in price for LED lighting.

Energy Savings: 76%

Energy Savings Rating: Approved Measure What's this?

Level	Status	Description
1	Concept not validated	Claims of energy savings may not be credible due to lack of documentation or validation by unbiased experts.
2	Concept validated:	An unbiased expert has validated efficiency concepts through technical review and calculations based on engineering principles.
3	Limited assessment	An unbiased expert has measured technology characteristics and factors of energy use through one or more tests in typical applications with a clear baseline.
4	Extensive assessment	Additional testing in relevant applications and environments has increased knowledge of performance across a broad range of products, applications, and system conditions.
5	Comprehensive analysis	Results of lab and field tests have been used to develop methods for reliable prediction of performance across the range of intended applications.
6	Approved measure	Protocols for technology application are established and approved.

Simple Payback, New Construction (years): 2.8 What's this?

Simple Payback, Retrofit (years): 5.1 What's this?

Simple Payback is one tool used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of a proposed investment, such as the investment in an energy efficient technology. Simple payback indicates how many years it will take for the initial investment to "pay itself back." The basic formula for calculating a simple payback is:

Simple Payback = Incremental First Cost / Annual Savings

The Incremental Cost is determined by subtracting the Baseline First Cost from the Measure First Cost.

For New Construction, the Baseline First Cost is the cost to purchase the standard practice technology. The Measure First Cost is the cost of the alternative, more energy efficienct technology. Installation costs are not included, as it is assumed that installation costs are approximately the same for the Baseline and the Emerging Technology.

For Retrofit scenarios, the Baseline First Cost is $0, since the baseline scenario is to leave the existing equipment in place. The Emerging Technology First Cost is the Measure First Cost plus Installation Cost (the cost of the replacement technology, plus the labor cost to install it). Retrofit scenarios generally have a higher First Cost and longer Simple Paybacks than New Construction scenarios.

Simple Paybacks are called "simple" because they do not include details such as the time value of money or inflation, and often do not include operations and maintenance (O&M) costs or end-of-life disposal costs. However, they can still provide a powerful tool for a quick assessment of a proposed measure. These paybacks are rough estimates based upon best available data, and should be treated with caution. For major financial decisions, it is suggested that a full Lifecycle Cost Analysis be performed which includes the unique details of your situation.

The energy savings estimates are based upon an electric rate of $.09/kWh, and are calculated by comparing the range of estimated energy savings to the baseline energy use. For most technologies, this results in "Typical," "Fast" and "Slow" payback estimates, corresponding with the "Typical," "High" and "Low" estimates of energy savings, respectively.

Details

LED Replacements for Directional Lighting

Track Lighting, Recessed Cans, Downlight Applications: LED vs. Halogen Incandescent

Integral track systems, usually ceiling-mounted tracks with adjustable heads (not directional replacement lamps in existing cans).

Item ID: 399

Sector: Residential, Commercial

Energy System: Lighting--Fixtures: Indoor

Synopsis:

Baseline Example:

Baseline Description: Incandescent halogen lighting
Baseline Energy Use: 113.8 kWh per year per unit

Comments:

Baseline is a halogen incandescent lamp. These are 46-78 W PAR lamps used in recessed cans and track lights with an average of about 66 W. Studies indicate that commercial lamps operate for about 3,450 hours per year while residential reflector lamps operate an average of 889 hours per year. The weighted average hours of operation is thus 0.33 x 3450 + 0.66 x 889 = 1,725 (Navigant Consulting Inc, 2011, Page 13).

Manufacturer's Energy Savings Claims: Currently no data available.

Best Estimate of Energy Savings:

"Typical" Savings: 76%
Low and High Energy Savings: 60% to 76%
Energy Savings Reliability: 6 - Approved Measure

Comments:

Manufacturer claims based on replacement of halogen sources with LED for typical PAR38 and MR16 applications. Sources include GE LED Retail Lamp brochure, Toshiba LED PAR38 website, and Osram Sylvania MR16 lamp brochure.

GE: http://www.gelighting.com/LightingWeb/na/images/63554_GE_LED_Retail_PAR38_SellSheet_tcm201-20360.pdf
Toshiba: http://www.toshiba.com/lighting/products/led-lamps/par38.jsp
Sylvania: http://assets.sylvania.com/assets/Documents/RETRO031.12a260ad-b4a0-45a6-9c2a-5735d72a76bc.pdf

Note: This is a deemed measure under the October 1, 2014 BPA "Energy Efficiency Implementation Manual". The deemed amount is $4.00 to $6.00 per LED and $10.00 per fixture.

Energy Use of Emerging Technology:

27.3 kWh per unit per year What's this?

Energy Use of an Emerging Technology is based upon the following algorithm.

Baseline Energy Use - (Baseline Energy Use * Best Estimate of Energy Savings (either Typical savings OR the high range of savings.))

Technical Potential:
Units: unit
Potential number of units replaced by this technology: 8,072,000
Comments:

According to the 2011 Navigant study "Energy Savings Estimates of Light Emitting Diodes in Niche Lighting Applications", our nation (in 2010) had 53,200,000 46 W PAR20, 58,900,000 67 W PAR30, and 89,700,000 78 W PAR38 halogen lamps in operation in the residential and commercial sectors. These Parabolic Aluminized Reflector lamps are suitable for recessed cans and track lights. The weighted average is 66 Watts. The average Wattage draw of an equivalent LED (which range from 13 W to 18 W for suitable replacements) is 15.8 Watts for a reduction in Wattage draw and energy use of 76%. The Northwest has 4% of our national population, so it is estimated that 8,072,000 such lamps exist in the region.

A 2013 Navigant study indicates that in 2012 LEDs still represented less than 1% of downlight fixtures (including PAR, BR, and R lamps). Interestingly enough, DOE energy conservation regulations designed to eliminate the use of incandescent lights in downlight fixtures, tended to promote the adoption of halogen reflector technologies. The CFL reflector lamp design showed a slightly decreased market share ( Navigant, 2013-04-01) Additional energy savings are available from the early replacement of BR (bulbous reflector) incandescent lamps.

Regional Technical Potential:
0.70 TWh per year
80 aMW
What's this?

Regional Technical Potential of an Emerging Technology is calculated as follows:

Baseline Energy Use * Estimate of Energy Savings (either Typical savings OR the high range of savings) * Technical Potential (potential number of units replaced by the Emerging Technology)

First Cost:

Installed first cost per: unit
Emerging Technology Unit Cost (Equipment Only): $40.00
Emerging Technology Installation Cost (Labor, Disposal, Etc.): $0.00
Baseline Technology Unit Cost (Equipment Only): $18.00

Comments:

An Internet review of products available through big box stores and Amazon indicates that the prices LED lamps and for PAR and R LED lamps range from $20 to $50 and for Halogen PAR 38 from $12 to $20. Since incumbent lamps are replaced on a regular basis, no additional labor cost assumed for installation of LED replacement.

Cost Effectiveness:

Simple payback, new construction (years): 2.8

Simple payback, retrofit (years): 5.1

What's this?

Cost Effectiveness is calculated using baseline energy use, best estimate of typical energy savings, and first cost. It does not account for factors such as impacts on O&M costs (which could be significant if product life is greatly extended) or savings of non-electric fuels such as natural gas. Actual overall cost effectiveness could be significantly different based on these other factors.

Comments:

A simple payback period analysis provides a limited perspective of the economic feasibility of LED replacement lamps; it could be a few years, or close to 10 years, depending on the product, hours of operation, and electric rates.

A lifecycle cost analysis provides a much more comprehensive way of looking at this technology’s cost effectiveness. The long life of the LED product means replacement lamps are not necessary for many years, solid waste is reduced, and energy savings accrue over the product’s useful life. When moving from a 65W incandescent lamp to an 17W LED lamp, energy savings are around 73%. A lifecycle analysis of this retrofit over the 25,000-hour lifecycle period results in a total cost of ownership over 10 times greater for the 65W incandescent lamp compared to the LED replacement.

Reference and Citations:

DOE EERE, 05/01/2013. Adoption of Light-Emitting Diodes in Common Applications
Department of Energy, Solid State Lighting Program, Building Technologies Office

DOE, 08/14/2014. Solid State Lighting
U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy

DOE, 08/14/2014. LED Lighting Facts
U.S. Department of Energy

DLC, 01/01/2013. DesignLights Consortium Qualified Products List
DesignLights Consortium, Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships, Inc.

PNNL, 11/01/2010. Demonstration Assessment of Light-Emitting Diode (LED) Accent Lighting, Host Site: Field Museum, Chicago, Illinois
U.S. Department of Energy

DLC, 01/01/2013. US DOE Solid State Lighting Technical Resources
DesignLights Consortium

Navigant Consulting Inc, 01/11/2011. Energy Savings of Light Emitting Diodes in Niche Lighting Applications
Building Technologies Program, USDOE

Rank & Scores

LED Replacements for Directional Lighting

There is no TAG available for this technology.